Iran's Judiciary Chief, Ayatollah Shahroudi admits human rights violations in Iran

The Abu Ghraib scandal had nothing to do with internal U.S. politics. By admitting that Iran's rulers have laws against political dissent and emasculate any opposition to their rule, they've debunked the credibility of their government and obviously don't deserve to be in power.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
This is good news, my secretary is Persian (Zeeba) and she told me theres a huge under-current in Iran right now of young people who just want to live their lives in Peace and not have the revolutionary courts tell them how to dress, act and live their lives.

The recent elections were a fraud because some of the more liberal candidates were not allowed on the ballot.


Maximu§

Tell Zeeba that she's right about that many Iranians want to live in peace, and that they don't want to have someone interfere in their lives. Tell her also that the days are since long gone when the morale police stopped people for their "Inappropriate" attire, and that women in Iran are dressing in tight-fitting clothes and high heels now, and have no problems doing so, and that they're listening to any kind of music they want to without any problems. Tell Zeeba that she shouldn't believe everything that the U.S. based Iranian exile media, TV and radios report about Iran, because much too much of what they say is pure nonsense, exaggerations and lies. Tell Zeeba also that most of the Iranians in Iran and also outside do absolutely not want any kind of U.S. interference in Iran of any kind - That they want to achieve any changes that are in demand on their own.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Abu Ghraib scandal had nothing to do with internal U.S. politics. By admitting that Iran's rulers have laws against political dissent and emasculate any opposition to their rule, they've debunked the credibility of their government and obviously don't deserve to be in power.

Does it matter if the U.S. is responsible for torture inside or outside of the U.S.? Do you mean to say that it would be acceptable if the U.S. government or the Pentagon had ordered non-Americans to be tortured outside of the U.S., but not acceptable if they had tortured people IN the U.S.???

I do not see any different circumstances here. The U.S. denies responsibility of the torture at Abu Ghraib after some people had alleged with the proof of pictures that such violations where taking place. In Iran, the Iranian Judiciary Chief brought it to the attention of the Iranian government and press, declaring that such violations exist in Iran at the hands of some intelligence officers, and criticized these actions. And it was not because of some pictures that he had to make such comments - He did it on his own initiative. If Rumsfeld and other high-ranking U.S. officials shouldn't resign, then I don't see the fairness in your argument that the Iranian government should resign. On the contrary, this shows that there are many within the Iranian establishment who do not approve of many of the serious problems that exist in Iran, and desire to change these things. This is something that some narrowminded people do not get, which is that the Iranian establishment is not one big block of people who all think the same, and share the same convictions. The whole reason that so much has changed in Iran as far as economic, social and political reforms over the past 15 years, is because there are so many elements within the establsihment of the Islamic Republic who are the driving force for positive changes in these areas. What is also positive is that these changes have occured and occur without violent conflict, coups or foreign intervention. Iranians are causing these changes, and it's happening gradually. Within a few years from now, even much more remarkable changes will take place. I'm confident that In Iran 10 years from now, there won't be any compulsory "hejab" (The head scarf), and newspapers that are intensly critical of the government will not be shut down. This is how a naturally, home-grown democracy emerges, and thus will survive, because it is not artificial like the "democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is imposed by a foreign power (To benefit its selfish interests and agenda) Such a democracy is bound to fail, and will only throw that society into an abyss of violent, destructive and bloody turmoil, threatening the very foundations of those national states.

I think that Shahroudi's remarks indicate the existence of democratic foundations and institutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by Siroos]

Originally posted by Siroos
This is another and very important step fowards in Iran's political liberalization evolution. Acknowledging the existence of problems is the first step towards solving them.

Since you and I come from different cultures, I know that we may never see eye to eye, but I will agree with you on this. Realizing that there is a problem is 'the first step on the road to recovery.'

If Iran keeps going in this direction making serious steps toward democracy, I have faith that the people of Iran will acheive prosperity again. Hopefully, this will be the first step of many more to come.

We both have a long way to go. We don't agree on much, but this is a start.

Originally posted by C0le

Originally posted by Siroos
What remains for you to understand though, is that Iran and North Korea are not colonies of the U.S. and the U.S. has no authority over these totally independent and sovereign countries. The U.S. has also no authority to decide who can and who can't have what. I think this is the biggest problem which the U.S. has to come to terms with. The U.S. needs to learn to mind its own business and focus more on the gigantic problems it has at home. By constantly bullying other countries it will only create more enemies for itself.

We have all the say we want, because its in OUR best interest that Iran and North Korea, should not be allowed to poses theses weapons, The other side of this coin is Its Irans and North Koreas best interest to have them.

Now tell me who do you think will win this one?

No, you have all the say you want over YOUR OWN COUNTRY - NOT over other sovereign countries. Since when did the U.N. decide that the law of the jungle rules in the world, giving certain countries the right to order other countries around and to attack them if they don't abide by what you want them to do or not to do? The U.S. is not the only country that has interests - other countries have just as much interests of their own as the U.S. does! It's funny how ignorant people like you ask the question "Why do they hate us so much?" -- Well, ofcourse this kind of superiority mentality and desire to establish master-slave relations between the U.S. and other countries causes hatred for the U.S. all over the world. And things will not get any better, but just worse for the U.S. if they continue with this attitude. And you can't expect that the U.S. can continue with its bullying in the world - Sooner or later someone will come along, something will happen that will put an end to it. But it won't happen painlessly - It usually doesn't when an agressor goes too far. There's plenty of evidence of that in history. The U.S. is doing the same mistake as so many other dominant world powers have done in the past. And all of them met the same destiny! The U.S. have come so far and had so much going for it, but instead of being satisfied, it wanted and wants more and more, and is willing to get it at any cost, sacrificing others in the process. There's a price for everything. The U.S. is today wrecklessly throwing out boomerangs in every direction, and these boomerangs will eventually come right back at it, knocking it down.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by Siroos]

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

Originally posted by Siroos
This is another and very important step fowards in Iran's political liberalization evolution. Acknowledging the existence of problems is the first step towards solving them.

Since you and I come from different cultures, I know that we may never see eye to eye, but I will agree with you on this. Realizing that there is a problem is 'the first step on the road to recovery.'

If Iran keeps going in this direction making serious steps toward democracy, I have faith that the people of Iran will acheive prosperity again. Hopefully, this will be the first step of many more to come.

We both have a long way to go. We don't agree on much, but this is a start.

Yes, I agree. And what a lot of people do not know though, is that Iran started its journey towards democracy long before this. It's a gradual process and one can't expect it to reach its destination over night. The democracies of Europe did not happen over night either. The European states went through a long and turbulent process before they reached the democratic welfare societies they have today. Even the most advanced European countries like the Scandinavian ones experienced repression, social injustice and political turmoil as late as in the 1930's. Other European countries like Portugal, Spain and Greece became democracies only as late as in the 1970's! Back then nobody was making a big fuss over it, but today alll the attention is directed towards Iran and the lack of freedoms there. Many people also ignore the fact that a country like Turkey - A NATO country and a close ally to the U.S. actually has had a more extensive human rights violations record in the past decade than Iran has! One doesn't hear much about that in the U.S., because Turkey is an ally and a member of NATO.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by Siroos]

lol Siroos you crack me up, please enlight me more

There are a number of you in this thread that need to seriously read and comprehend this:
Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

Allow me to give some pointers here:

Please edit the quoted portion to the salient material needed to make your point! There is no need to repeat entire posts within the body of your response.

Quote the post immediately before yours: This doesn't make much sense, but if you must quote the post before yours, please quote just a small portion.

Quoting an entire post: Size doesn't matter unless the post is already small, less than 3 sentences. You will receive a warning if you quote an entire post that exceeds four or more sentences.

Compound quoting: If you quote someone quoting someone, this will result in a penalty.

seekerof

Originally posted by ulshadow
lol

Siroos you crack me up, please enlight me more

lol:That's all you have to say? Wow, what a contributor you are to this forum! : I like you're arguments! They make a whole lot of sense! I think You are much more enlightening than me or anyone else here!